Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:44:47 +1100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> So the main bottleneck would be water, I suppose.
> This is not a joke: Is blood a satisfying drink?
well considering people drink dr pepper.....
seriously though, the blood is consumed.
I didn't really connect this with the topic,
but would the blood sugar make a difference?
I have seen people drink the blood.
> I recall an estimation a long time ago of 1 or 2 million.
I really doubt this could be attained pre agriculture.
> I think Argentinian beef gained some popularity here. But this beef is also
> raised by power fedder in farm houses. Possibly also with "animal flour",
> which is held responsible as the cause.
In this respect we are lucky - our cattle graze and roam free. Cattle
stations
are absolutely huge here - you could drive for hours and still be on the
same
station.
>
> If you look at a graphic, then the numbers have been relative constant until
> the middle ages, about 1200 AD. 5000 years of agriculture didn't change so
> much. Why did it boost so astronimically after 1400?
> Medicine? Political stability? Maybe just more aggressive food production.
the last one I would think. but this would be as a result for a need for
the second
one. As far as I can find medicine didn't improve lifespan/population
until
the 20th century.
John McKenzie
--
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost [log in to unmask]
|
|
|